9.2. Action research
9.2.2. The exploration of community conceptualisations of key concepts
An individual is a social being who actively interacts with society and in so doing is involved in a
process of meaning-making about social constructs (McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 2003). The meanings that people attribute to various phenomena are used to make interpretations about the world through which they can make sense of what happens to them and others. It was believed that different cultures and communities may have developed unique and implicit understandings of concepts such as health, illness, death, community and orphans. Since these concepts were integral to the programme of intervention, it was necessary for community members to make these conceptualisations explicit and to become aware of any prejudicial or stigmatising myths held by the group or individuals.
This exercise afforded the opportunity for participants to (i) create shared meaning through group interaction that would enable them to develop working definitions and (ii) make explicit conceptualisations that would have relevance and meaning in their lives. Although a great deal of information dissemination about HTV/AIDS has been undertaken, researchers still consistently report ignorance, stigma and a proliferation of myths (Campbell, 2003; Marcus, 2002). Health, illness and death are concepts that carry physical, emotional and social meaning (Arnold, 1990). Even though there is a body of literature on the constructs of community (Duffy & Wong, 2000), orphans (Giese et al., 2003) and risk and vulnerability (Dawes, 2000), the researcher needed to ensure that there was a shared meaning attributed to these constructs by those who would be offering PSS to vulnerable children. People needed to actively engage with and express their understanding of these key constructs. During this process, the researcher developed insight into community definitions and conceptualisations that could then be used as the starting point for further sensitisation and confidence building.
By the time that the participants were asked to discuss these key concepts, they were usually familiar with the researcher as she had been participating in the CMM's and had conducted the informal survey to establish if the criteria for selecting a partner community had been met. The participants of each SP were asked to consider cultural and community definitions of key concepts within small group formats. In each instance the facilitator introduced the topic, small groups discussions took place and then a spokesperson for each small group presented their responses at a plenary feedback meeting. On the first day of the SP, the concepts health, illness, death, community and orphans were discussed. Vulnerability/risk and PSS were explored on the second day. The group discussions and presentations were the critical arena through which typical phrases, metaphors, arguments and stories came to the fore to enable the researcher to gain insight into the participants' understanding and attributions about these key concepts (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 2002).
9.2.2.1. Health, illness, death, community and orphanhood:
The facilitator of the SP introduced the task of discussing multi-cultural understanding by first writing on the flipchart (See Figure 9.1) and then using the example of health saying:
"In my family, community and culture, people are considered to be healthy if they are hardly ever sick, if they do a lot of physical exercise, if they do not smoke and do not drink alcohol. In some communities, people are considered healthy if they do not have any aches or pains. Health may be thought to be caused by the absence of germs, the season of the year (people are more likely to get coughs and colds during certain months of the year), or by various other things. The consequence of being in good health is that someone can do many things like work, be active, play soccer, etc.
A healthy person is not sick."
The researcher stressed that there were no right or wrong responses as each community, and even family, had their own specific ways of dealing with any of the concepts. Participants formed small groups of five to eight individuals, selected one of the concepts (ensuring that all topics were covered) and then considered the ways in which the concepts were defined and understood by people in their own community. Examples were not provided for the other key concepts. Each group was asked to elect an orator and to prepare notes on a flip-chart to present to the plenary group. They were allotted thirty to forty minutes for the discussion. The groups then reconvened for plenary report feedbacks. At the end of the presentation, others were encouraged to contribute their own ideas.
Figure 9.1. Community-based definitions of key concepts:
Community Definitions
In our family, community, culture and nation we understand / know / think about Health / Illness / Death / Orphans / Community
as...
What is it? What is health / illness / death / orphans / community?
Why or how does it happen?
When does it happen?
What are the consequences of health / illness / death / orphans / community.
|| Only choose one concept to discuss! { Special attention was given to observing non-verbal communications. The most frequently noted
non-verbal communications were either signs of affirmation and agreement or dissent (nodding and shaking of heads). Disagreement at times took the form of frustration, which was dealt with by
encouraging the individual to voice his or her opinion and open it to debate. Some interesting debates took place that enabled the researcher to gain insight into the intensity of affective involvement in the concepts. Due to the sensitive nature of some of the topics, co-facilitators were requested to take special note of individual reaction to the tasks and to later, individually and in private, enquire if the individual needed extra assistance to deal with difficulties. To conclude the session, the researcher said that she would be using the inputs to analyse the community- conceptualisations, but as an interim measure, she attempted to arrive at a summary or definition of the concept for the purpose of the workshop and the work that would follow. The SP participants usually continued to engage with these concepts as they arose in the programme and frequently asked to add a further component or to modify a concept that had been previously discussed. This was encouraged since the active engagement and thinking on the concepts were key outcomes.
The flipcharts and notes made during the plenary session were used to develop the community-based definitions. In this manner nine sets of text were obtained on each of these concepts that could be analysed further.
8.2.2.2. Vulnerable children:
On the second day of the SP, community members were asked to discuss the concepts of risk/
vulnerability and PSS. While making notes on the flipchart (See Figure 8.2), the facilitator introduced the topic by stating:
"Nowadays, many children are having especially difficult lives. Their lives may be difficult because of situations that arise within the child -for example the child may be mentally retarded, blind or may find it difficult to live comfortably with others. A child may find life difficult because of situations that arise within the family. For example, the child may have parents who drink too much, who fight, whose family members who are sick and dying or whose parents work far away. Or the child may have an especially difficult life because of the situation in the community, such as lack of resources, no jobs, lots of deaths and so on."
The participants were divided into small groups of five to eight participants (with different group compositions to preceding activities) and asked to discuss the concept of vulnerability/risk and to develop a working definition of a vulnerable child. Again, they were asked to elect a group orator who would provide feedback at the plenary session. They were given thirty to forty minutes for each discussion and more time if this seemed to be needed. The spokesperson then presented their ideas in the plenary session, followed by contributions from other participants. The same procedure as discussed above in Section 8.2.2.1. were used to encourage debate and to develop a working